Washington State bans copper bottom paint

[Rick D]

Follow Up

I have a query into RBOC, Recreational Boaters of California, an in-state advocacy group for boaters and one that works with Boat US for California issues. I will post the substance of their reply, although they very likely would rather duck it since the subject is more than a little radioactive. There was a hearing May 2nd, so I asked what their assessment was following it.

I am more than a little concerned I know nothing of it. I should have had e-mails from both them and BUS on the hearing. Local harbor boating groups should have been all over this as should have been the yacht clubs. Fastbottom's advocacy work is exactly what it takes to move the steamroller a bit to maybe miss you.

Before I retired, one of my reports was Governmental Affairs, so I have some sense of what's going on here which concerns me all the more. For advocacy groups, we and our recreational partners are what are referred to as 'low hanging fruit' in that you always work your strategy by identifying what's easiest to go after first. You can guess where we are. Of course, if all this is simply a response to the Feds rather than clean-water advocates, the ramifications are ultimately Country-wide rather than state-wide; we'll all have a chance to share the pain.

 

[KD3PC]

RichH

so well said....

and so far there is nothing that the little guy/recreational boater/antique car buff can do about it.

The chants of "write your congress person" falls on deaf ears and results in a form letter, if you are lucky and absolutely no action. One of our senators just puts a note on his website that they "get too many comments and letters to respond"....isn't that his job...

The EPA has been allowed/mandated and funded to do what ever it wants to. These latest "listening sessions" are nothing more than those employees who drew the short stick are put in front with an irrelevant power point and look at each other every question to see who's turn it is to give an even more irrelevant answer. And god forbid you submit a question they don't want to address...

Two more states who have drank the koolaid to the harm of their citizens. EPA should regulate lawn and garden chemicals....now that would do some good towards the runoff.

What's next bronze fittings, they are mostly copper. For criminey's sake we DRINK water from copper pipes - have for years....where is the regulation of that?? EPA would say - coming soon, as soon as we clean the bays, ban recreational boating...

Idiots plain and simple.

 

[fstbttms]

I have a query into RBOC, Recreational Boaters of California, an in-state advocacy group for boaters and one that works with Boat US for California issues. I will post the substance of their reply, although they very likely would rather duck it since the subject is more than a little radioactive. There was a hearing May 2nd, so I asked what their assessment was following it.

You couldn't be more wrong. The RBOC is staunchly opposed to SB 623 and attended the hearing May 2nd (as I did) to voice that opposition.

Of course, if all this is simply a response to the Feds rather than clean-water advocates, the ramifications are ultimately Country-wide rather than state-wide; we'll all have a chance to share the pain.[/quote

Every state in the Union has to adhere to federal clean water standards. If they don't (as is the case in many of California's coastal waterways), it is incumbent upon the states to bring those waterways into compliance. This should not come as some big shock to anybody. It is the law of the land and has been for many years.

 

[fstbttms]

What's next bronze fittings, they are mostly copper. For criminey's sake we DRINK water from copper pipes - have for years....where is the regulation of that?? EPA would say - coming soon, as soon as we clean the bays, ban recreational boating...

Idiots plain and simple.

You really don't have a clue, do you? Facts and reality never enter into your argument, do they? If copper pipes elevated the copper levels in drinking water above federal standards, then yes, I would hope the state would step in and rectify the situation. But copper pipes do not do that. The difference between copper pipe and copper-based anti fouling paint is that copper-based anti fouling paint is designed to leach its copper into the water. That's how it works. And after decades of hundreds of thousands of boats leaching copper into small, confined waterways, the copper now exceeds federal standards. What part of all this do you not understand?

 

[Calif. Ted]

Bought a boat in Alameda last summer and learned that they only use 1 coat of paint, don't require divers as often because of lower water temps, and get 1 maybe 2 years paint life.
I painted down south in Feb. with Trinidad (highest copper available to me) 2 coats with a 3rd coat at waterline and leading edges and expect to get the 3 or 4 years that are typical down here with monthly diver cleaning.
Different environments and applications, a lot of people are being forced out of boating already due to ever rising high cost of keeping a boat. But it's not the people buying very large expensive Nordhavn's, their business is actually expanding.
It's the average person this is gonna really hurt.

 

[fstbttms]

Bought a boat in Alameda last summer and learned that they only use 1 coat of paint, don't require divers as often because of lower water temps, and get 1 maybe 2 years paint life.
I painted down south in Feb. with Trinidad (highest copper available to me) 2 coats with a 3rd coat at waterline and leading edges and expect to get the 3 or 4 years that are typical down here with monthly diver cleaning.
Different environments and applications.

While it is true that hull cleaning frequencies in Northern California are less than they are in Southern California (due to more rapid fouling the further south you go), the paints and amounts used are the essentially the same. Anybody who told you that you only need a single coat of paint here was sadly misinformed. Of course you would only get a year or so out a single coat. That's why you use two coats on the hull, three at the waterline and leading and trailing edges of the foils. With proper number of coats and maintenance , a quality anti fouling paint will give you 3 years of good service in Northern California, just as it would down south.

 

[KD3PC]

You really don't have a clue, do you? Facts and reality never enter into your argument, do they?

Actually I do have a clue, and understand quite well. It is YOU that is clueless.

The fact is that all the "recreational boat bottoms under 65'" leaching copper is just like ALL the registered boats on the chesapeake bay dumping their full holding tanks at the same time - It will not make one hill of beans difference in the water quality, when compared to what the surface runoff does and the sewage plants dump, respectively.

AS I SAID before - if it IS a problem (science and studies conflict), simply ban the paint for ALL boats that sit in the water. Once and for all, at the federal level. Done. Are you now satisfied? Anything other action is bogus and serving some special interest.

Recreational boaters are simply the easiest target for more "feel good" legislation and fodder for the eco-terrorists/greenies to ban everything on their agenda.

Name one place in the US that is actually "cleaner" and not parts per trillion...as a result of the EPA regulations, or better yet in the state of CA or WA as a result? The Chesapeake cleaner? Not that any science or report can show...after 40 years of EPA "action"....

 

[KD3PC]

With proper number of coats and maintenance , a quality anti fouling paint will give you 3 years of good service in Northern California, just as it would down south.

Speaking of facts:
At post #19...you tell us that you can't get 4 years, maybe 2...

At post #23.."A typical bottom job last 2-3 years max, whether it be in Northern or Southern California"

which is it??

 

[fstbttms]

The fact is that all the "recreational boat bottoms under 65'" leaching copper is just like ALL the registered boats on the chesapeake bay dumping their full holding tanks at the same time - It will not make one hill of beans difference in the water quality, ..."....

This is not a fact. It is simply your opinion.

AS I SAID before - if it IS a problem (science and studies conflict), simply ban the paint for ALL boats that sit in the water. Once and for all, at the federal level. Done. Are you now satisfied? Anything other action is bogus and serving some special interest."....

Why ban copper nationwide? It isn't a problem nationwide. It is a problem in Washington and California. Further, the individual states have the responsibility to comply with federal water quality standards. Why would you want the feds to step in and take over the whole show? Also, I'd like to know what special interest is being served by this bill. You can't produce one, I guarantee it.

 

[fstbttms]

Speaking of facts:
At post #19...you tell us that you can't get 4 years, maybe 2...

At post #23.."A typical bottom job last 2-3 years max, whether it be in Northern or Southern California"

which is it??

I don't see the conflict. 2 or 3 years is typical. Where have I said anything other than that?

 

[KD3PC]

Why ban copper nationwide? It isn't a problem nationwide. .

So you are telling me that there is a difference in how much copper is leaching out in to CA/WA waters by some number of boats and that a comparable number of boats sitting in Annapolis or Newport or Oriental are NOT going to leach the same amount? And you call me clueless? Paint is Paint and water is water....

If it is a PROBLEM, then again why not simply ban it for ALL boats...ALL BOATS..

do the big boy's boats (>65') not leach? Do they do something differently with their bottom paint or slippage or ?? PFM they don't ablate or leach.

Your arguments are pointing more and more to another source as the cause of copper leaching in to the water...

Just re-read your posts, this last one all but cements the fact that the recreational boats are NOT the problem....else every state with a similar concentration of recreational boats under 65' would have the SAME problem as WA/CA.

 

[KD3PC]

... paint every four years. In reality, it is much closer to twice that frequency.

that would be TWO years according to my math and your admonitions in #19 and 23

 

[fstbttms]

So you are telling me that there is a difference in how much copper is leaching out in to CA/WA waters by some number of boats and that a comparable number of boats sitting in Annapolis or Newport or Oriental are NOT going to leach the same amount?
If it is a PROBLEM, then again why not simply ban it for ALL boats...ALL BOATS..

Of course a given boat is going to leach the same amount, one location to to the next. That isn't the only criteria that determines whether a body of water is going to become impaired. For instance, lots of boats on the East Coast live on brackish rivers where (presumably) there is a fair amount of current moving through the marinas or mooring fields. This would have a large effect on whether or not copper loading was an issue in those locations. Or maybe the places you mentioned do have a problem with copper that the states simply haven't addressed yet. I don't know. I just don't understand why you would argue in favor of painting the entire nation with the same brush. Doesn't make sense.

do the big boy's boats (>65') not leach? Do they do something differently with their bottom paint or slippage or ?? PFM they don't ablate or leach.?

I presume the main reason large vessels are exempt is that they don't tend to congregate small basins like the the vast majority of pleasure craft do.

Just re-read your posts, this last one all but cements the fact that the recreational boats are NOT the problem....else every state with a similar concentration of recreational boats under 65' would have the SAME problem as WA/CA.

Again, the concentration of boats in a given area is only one contributing factor to the problem. But I do not have the facts concerning the copper-loading in your state or any other on the East Coast. And neither do you, my friend.

 

[fstbttms]

that would be TWO years according to my math and your admonitions in #19 and 23

Yes, I was saying that the majority of boaters typically haul for paint every two years in California. With proper maintenance and a good bottom job, that can easily be stretched to three. Again, what is your point?

 

[KD3PC]

Yes, I was saying that the majority of boaters typically haul for paint every two years in California. With proper maintenance and a good bottom job, that can easily be stretched to three. Again, what is your point?

You are so quick to tell someone that they can not get 4 years..when they may, and often do. But you are right.

As you are so quick to tell me I am clueless, etc, etc. And I am not. And you are right.

I simply disagree with your logic and your facts as you present them. I have made my argument in hopes of showing others here that there is more to this regulation whether in CA or WA - than one of bottom paint. And of course you are right.

Else they would have not let the 66' boat owner off the hook. And again you are right, they must congregate elsewhere...less cuprous.

You have proved my point within a shadow of a doubt in #93..there is something else adding copper to the water in your state and WA. But you are right.

I do have copper loading info from CBF. But you are right, must be the water action or....

Congratulations.

 

[fstbttms]

You are so quick to tell someone that they can not get 4 years..when they may, and often do.

No, they do not. And if they do, as I said, it is probably because they are stretching a bottom already in poor condition. Anybody can say they go 10 years between bottom jobs if they want. It doesn't mean the paint is still working.

You have proved my point within a shadow of a doubt in #93..there is something else adding copper to the water in your state and WA.

Never said there wasn't. In fact, I mentioned the ban on copper brake pads in both states. But the studies show that in the impaired bodies, the greatest source of copper-loading is anti fouling paint.

I do have copper loading info from CBF.

What is "CBF"? Let's see your numbers. Let's see anything that shows whether copper is, or is not, an issue where you live. Let's see anything backing up your claims that doesn't come from a consortium of chemical companies.

As far as I can see, you have yet to prove a single point that you have raised.

 

[KD3PC]

Your same San Diego study is one that shows the "other" Navy sites. Elizabeth River, Norfolk (Little River) and up where we are the ghost ships and other dumping. San Diego was highest, Elizabeth River next and then the others. All used the Navy leach rates to "simulate civilian leach rates". The only "fresh water" in that area is the Dismal Swamp inflow and surface runoff.


CBF, is the EPA's buddy in this part of the world. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. They and the EPA just kicked the cleanup of Our bay down the road for another 10-12 years. "negotiated a settlement in lieu of extensive litigation" is how they put it...Made lots of regulations and told the 5 state area to get with it...but NO money or guidance. SNAFU is the order of the day.

None are interested in Solutions....as I am.

Google is your friend, as is the Navy, oddly enough in this case.

 

[fstbttms]

I appreciate the candid and informative reply. I would make one correction to your statement. The SCCWRP study I quoted was based on actual sampling done in the marinas in San Diego Bay, not generalized from leach rates provided by the Navy. And in a precursor study, SCCWRP actually collected samples from the water around pleasure craft berthed in San Diego Bay before, during and after in-water hull cleaning activities.

ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/405_recreational.pdf

 

[JK_Boston_Catalina310]

If we thought more

instead of making irrational posts, it might make more sense.

If it is a PROBLEM, then again why not simply ban it for ALL boats...ALL BOATS..

do the big boy's boats (>65') not leach? Do they do something differently with their bottom paint or slippage or ?? PFM they don't ablate or leach.

There are a couple of logical reasons for the law to exempt large boats and commercial boats.

1) surface area - Recreational boats make up the vast majority of the painted surface area in any given marina. I don't have any statistics to back this up but I don't think it is necessary. My marina has at least 300 boats. Of that, none are over 65 feet and less then 15 area commercial boats. One research vessel and 8-12 lobster boats. This is typical for the vast majority of marinas I have visited. Maybe a commercial port like LA might be a little different but most of us don't keep our recreational boats in those type of areas.

2) cost per return - It is relatively cheap for a sub-sixty five foot boat to get pulled every couple of years and repaint. The cost for doing this to a boat over 65 feet is much more expensive. Similar to above, how many over 65 foot boats are there in your marina? I would guess not that many. Even an area like Newport RI has relatively few 65 foot or larger boats. While I would guess 1/3 of the boats in my marina (~100 boats) could be pulled by personal trailers by the owner without the yard.

3) cutting the struggling commercial guys a break - Here in Mass, the majority of the commercial guys are small, independent fisherman (lobster, cod, clams, etc.). These guys are taking a huge hit with the price of fuel. The cost of fish has gone up at the store but not by enough to cover the extra cost. Most of the commercial guys I know keep up on boat maintenance like bottom cleaning and painting because it means fuel efficiency. The legislators could have looked to cut this small percentage of the copper painted surface area a break. Plus, for the recreational boater, the maintenance cost of the boats is discretionary spending not overhead. It is easier to justify costing someone some discretionary money then to take money away from working families.

4) legality - Some have said that this ban should apply to the Navy and Coast Guard boats as well. The problem with this is that it is illegal for a state to put limits on the federal government. There is even legal issues if the EPA were to ban the copper bottom paint. The EPA can't put limits on the Defense Department.

I also think a lot of those making posts have lost sight of how lucky you are to live in a climate that allows you to keep your boat in year round. In the northeast, I don't think there would be this much complaining about this type of ban. We typically have to pull our boats each year for the winter. So most of us have a yearly ritual of scraping, sanding and painting our bottoms. So this ban would only have a slight increase in cost (an additional $50-80 per gallon of paint). We also don't typically clean the bottoms during the season. Most of us will clean the water line and what ever we can reach with some MacGyver type contraption we make up. Racers probably clean the bottoms more regularly.

Oh and kd3pc, copper from pipes IS an issue. The EPA has discharge limits for municipal waste water systems for copper (I believe it is currently 1.6 micrograms per liters (parts per billion)). Your statements about drinking water are totally misinformed. Toxicity is set for each receptor and the toxic level of copper for humans is very high. The toxic levels for marine creatures is very low.

 

[fstbttms]

In the northeast, I don't think there would be this much complaining about this type of ban. We typically have to pull our boats each year for the winter.

Which may also mean that copper-loading from anti fouling paint is not a problem in your area. Boats spend only a part of their lives in the water. Another reason not to paint every region with the same regulatory brush.